Author
Topic: Clarification, please. (Read 4566 times)

Error has no rights. As such, anti-Catholic viewpoints are not permitted to be posted here.

My question: is "anti-Catholic" considered to be a synonym for "non-Catholic"? In my understanding the expression "anti-Catholic" implies hostility, while "non-Catholic" is simply disagreement or a different opinion. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Yes, I understand the exceptions you mentioned. But that is not what I had in mind. Just because a religious point is not Catholic, it is not necessarily hostile, and that is the way I parse the expression "anti-Catholic".

As far as the rules are concerned, any viewpoint that contradicts the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic faith is not welcome here. Asking questions and seeking clarification is allowed, but stating, or attempts to show that, the Church is false is not.

So, let me know, mods, if I have gone too far in perceived antagonism - or you can ban me. It's your forum after all, not mine.

I should also say that if the intent of the original post was to passively aggressively pressure the moderator to ban me, then you are clearly sinning and show your true colors as a viper, because passive aggressiveness is not a mark at all of Christian humility, as Christ Himself never used such a technique, but rather said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no - any more is of evil."

It was the same methodology that the Pharisees used in pressuring the Romans to kill Jesus, such that the Pharisees could kill Jesus during Passover.

Now obviously, your sin isn't as great, because it's just an internet forum - but nonetheless, if the moderators want to ban me, that's fine, it's your forum, not mine.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 09:30:07 AM by Livenotonevil »

Logged

May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

So, let me know, mods, if I have gone too far in perceived antagonism - or you can ban me. It's your forum after all, not mine.

I should also say that if the intent of the original post was to passively aggressively pressure the moderator to ban me, then you are clearly sinning and show your true colors as a viper, because passive aggressiveness is not a mark at all of Christian humility, as Christ Himself never used such a technique, but rather said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no - any more is of evil."

It was the same methodology that the Pharisees used in pressuring the Romans to kill Jesus, such that the Pharisees could kill Jesus during Passover.

Now obviously, your sin isn't as great, because it's just an internet forum - but nonetheless, if the moderators want to ban me, that's fine, it's your forum, not mine.

Simmer down with the solipsistic victimhood buddy. Scowler isn't even Catholic and it's unlikely even thought about you in asking the question.

Guilty conscience?

Logged

"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

So, let me know, mods, if I have gone too far in perceived antagonism - or you can ban me. It's your forum after all, not mine.

I should also say that if the intent of the original post was to passively aggressively pressure the moderator to ban me, then you are clearly sinning and show your true colors as a viper, because passive aggressiveness is not a mark at all of Christian humility, as Christ Himself never used such a technique, but rather said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no - any more is of evil."

It was the same methodology that the Pharisees used in pressuring the Romans to kill Jesus, such that the Pharisees could kill Jesus during Passover.

Now obviously, your sin isn't as great, because it's just an internet forum - but nonetheless, if the moderators want to ban me, that's fine, it's your forum, not mine.

Simmer down with the solipsistic victimhood buddy. Scowler isn't even Catholic and it's unlikely even thought about you in asking the question.

Guilty conscience?

No, I didn't know that Scowler was Catholic or not - however, given the fact that some people on this forum have, since the time I have been here, have posted threads asking the mods to "do something" about me, it wouldn't surprise me that in its intention his post was directed against me.

I also have an unhealthy habit of overthinking people's motives when I cannot possibly know their motives.

If by guilt you mean me being immature in my own postings - then yes, I guess you could say I feel guilty, and apologize whenever I have been immature.

If you mean by guilt my belief in Eastern Orthodoxy as the the Bride of Christ, as our Mother Church, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - than no, absolutely not. As my previous postings have shown, I am directed by objective historical and spiritual observances in my life about both churches, not by emotional sensationalism or a running away from the Roman Catholic Church's problems.

Logged

May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Scowler was very clearly writing about his own situation, rather than trying to get moderators to do something about someone else.

Okay, and I apologize for that.

Logged

May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

I guess it is a good idea to be clear about my intents. No, I was not talking about anyone else, just wanted to clarify the boundaries of acceptable behavior. I am not particularly interested in theology, angelology, demonology, etc... my interest lays in philosophy, and within that - epistemology. I am curious about some words and their meanings. For example I would like to discuss the word "omniscience". It is a totally secular concept... but what is it? Precisely? Would it be allowed to open a thread about this subject?

To be fair: nowhere in the OP does Scowler refer to his own situation (Jayne’s “clearly” notwithstanding). His question applies broadly to all non-Catholic posters.

It was clear to me and probably to anyone who has been following Scowler's posts.

It’s fine if your definition of clear includes “knowing someone’s posting history.” Clarity does usually not come so beleaguered. For someone unaware of Scowler’s posts, it could just as well look like a wondering as to why allegedly anti-Catholic posters are allowed to keep on spewing their venom all over the forum, with the implication that “non-Catholic” ought to equate with “anti-Catholic.” Like all texts, it is open to interpretation. In and of itself, however, it’s “clearly” only a general question.

I guess it is a good idea to be clear about my intents. No, I was not talking about anyone else, just wanted to clarify the boundaries of acceptable behavior. I am not particularly interested in theology, angelology, demonology, etc... my interest lays in philosophy, and within that - epistemology. I am curious about some words and their meanings. For example I would like to discuss the word "omniscience". It is a totally secular concept... but what is it? Precisely? Would it be allowed to open a thread about this subject?

I was convinced our new friend was here to play the former-Christian-now-enlightened-pagan role, as I stated several times. The more he rejected comments out of hand, and refused suggestions (albeit, usually politely, except he lost it when I threw the pearls before swine quote out there ) , the more I thought him to be a troll.

I'm still critical of your intransigence, Big S (and that's a huge issue), but as the thread pages of debate multiplied, and you shared background, I was able to see and understand your state of mind much better, and why you are intransigent. You may have trollish tendencies, but it's not purposeful.

To your question, it's weaved into your debates - you often bring up forum rules and try to be respectful of them.

OT, for the most part I appreciate your comments, Livenotonevil, and learn much about our separated brothers. If it weren't for you, I'd not have come to understand Hesychasm.

Logged

They shall not be confounded in the evil time; and in the days of famine they shall be filledPsalms 36:19